26 Responses to If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

Christians who ask the original question in my opinion lack the mental capacity to be anything but what they are. It is a question so absurd on its face that the person asking it couldn’t care less what the answer is. If they did, they would have answered it for themselves long ago.

Also, from your about page I have just subscribed to you on G+. I’m still very much trying to learn how to get the best out of it, really only following Felicia Day, Will Wheaton, and their affiliated projects such as the Flog and Geek and Sundry. Looking forward to your G+ updates.

A mutation is when your genetic information gets mixed up and you often end up with various genetic problems such as disease and deformities. Adaptation is a result of our being able to maintain homeostasis in changing environments. Please stop mixing up the two. There are no beneficial mutations.

How are there still pygmies and dwarfs??!! Use your brain! That’s because there’s still people out there willing to closely breed! When you are living in a small village or you choose to breed with only certain people due to preferred physical features and/or those who fall into a specific ethnic and ideological group and you who have been inbreeding with each other for centuries, then you increase the chances of producing children with genetic mutations. And it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that dwarfism is a disadvantage and challenge and not a benefit. Being deficient in growth hormone and other hormones alone is a distinct “disadvantage” and medical problem.

As for white fur being a beneficial mutation, no, it is adaptation to a harsh environment. But as with many adaptive changes, many would suffer if placed in an environment that is drastically different from the environment that they adapted to. Place that same bear into a warmer, hotter environment and it would be let vulnerable to that environment; not just to predators. The same will happen to fresh water fish. They can adapt slowly and gradually to increasingly salinated water due to their homeostatic adaptive abilities, but they have not “mutated” into super fish. If you placed them back into fresh water after that, they will die. You see, animals adapt to environments–even harsh ones. But whatever homeostatic changes they had gone through to adapt, led to a decreased ability to adapt to their original environments. I hope I taught you something.

You taught me something. You taught me that you don’t know the difference between Lamarckism and current evolutionary theory. You seem smart enough to learn the difference. Go read, it’s really very interesting.
If you are heading toward claiming species are immutable with this line of reasoning, you should just go ahead and skip a few steps, explain away extinction and then get ready to defend substance dualism.
I won’t even get started on the dwarfism argument – you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s OK, just find out some more about it before you start talking about it again.

“If you placed them back into fresh water after that, they will die. You see, animals adapt to environments–even harsh ones. But whatever homeostatic changes they had gone through to adapt, led to a decreased ability to adapt to their original environments”

Wait, wait. Just wait a second. You’re telling me that if I take an animal who has adapted to their new environment and put them back in their old environment . . . they may not survive??

WTF EVOLUTION IS DEAD EVOLUTIUON DOES NOT PREDICT ANY OF THAT HOLY CRAP!!!11!11!!one!oneoneone!!!!11!!!!

So why should humans go through an impressive metamorphosis from a common primate ancestor
with monkeys, while a monkey is still basically a monkey. Monkeys are still surviving and thriving, but
do well call them “highly evolved” as the article suggests we should?

What I am saying is that gaining more genetic information would make something “super.” Nothing is capable off evolving and gaining MORE information, things adapt an gain an new adaptive ability but they also lose something in the process. That is the nature of homeostatic balance.

Great point. There’s not reason for any ape to evolve in the first place. But as evolutionary theory teaches us, through sheer will power and billions of years you can even change what was working for you perfectly and become more attractive, more intelligent, less hairy, gain better posture, gain the ability to speak and form languages–anything is possible if you just believe!

“You taught me that you don’t know the difference between Lamarckism and current evolutionary theory. You seem smart enough to learn the difference.”

Please elaborate. As far as I can see, Lamarckism does make sense. For example, the homeostatic changes that the fish water fish would do through to adjust to being salt water fish would obviously have an effect on the progeny assuming this generation was able to reproduce as normal. Thus, they would have passed on their newly acquired adaptive ability (to salt water) on to the next generation. But the new generation would not have gained any EXTRA adaptive ability, as they would be unable to survive the fresh water environment as their parents had at one time.

Lamarckism is the idea that offspring inherit acquired characteristics of their parents. For instance, if you lift weights then your children will have bigger muscles, or in the classic example, as giraffes stretch their necks to reach the leaves on higher and higher branches, succeeding generations inherit longer and longer necks. Genetics sort of precludes this mechanism, although it looks like offspring may inherit changes in gene expression induced during a parent’s lifetime.
Evolution is all about homeostasis. Unbalancing changes in an organism’s environment make previously irrelevant or even disadvantageous differences in a family of critters’ genome begin to matter and the family then thrives in the new environment while the other families die out or move on. Voila, homeostasis. Our understanding of how and why genes work is based on this idea. Genes respond to the environment, they recombine, they replicate and repair themselves imperfectly. All this makes sense in light of the inherent advantage of the genome’s mutability and adaptability, i.e. evolution.
You’re right, genetic information is gained and lost, but there is no equation involved. The ‘information theory’ arguments put forward by the ID crowd are bogus, and as far as I can tell, intentionally so. Nothing becomes ‘super’ in the process of evolution and I agree that the term “more highly evolved” is misleading. Sharks stayed sharks because they are very well adapted to their environment. Same for monkeys. Changes in their genotypes and phenotypes will tend to oscillate around a point of equilibrium – homeostasis. On the other hand, sharks may have presented the bony fishes’ ancestors with an unbalanced situation – a hostile environment conducive to variation, though not a zero-sum game. Again, I would encourage you to read more about this, it is very interesting and enhances ones appreciation of the natural world. I also think that in the end, you’ll find it bears the same relationship to theology that heliocentrism did.

Evolutionary theory teaches no such thing; belief is not part of the process. You are under the mistaken impression that mutation between generations (aka: evolution) happens for a directed purpose. It’s one of the results of reproduction.

If we supposedly needed to evolve for survival, that would be for a purpose. What happened to “survival of the fittest?” Our supposed ape like ancestors wouldn’t have had to evolve for survival as they were more equipped for survival in a harsher natural environment than we are. How in the world were we the more apt species to evolve from a species that could survive an environment where you often need powerful jaws and great muscle strength just to acquire sustenance?

Let’s say that I was to accept that humans are related to apes and are a mutant that was derived from a common, ape-like ancestor. How in the world would be go from bacteria to apes if you agree that there is a homeostatic balance where there is no agglomeration of new information but rather gain one adaptive ability while losing another? Even when Dawkins attempted to explain how bacteria supposedly evolved into apes, he actually claimed that, like transformers, unicellular organisms eventually came together and formed multicelluar organism such as sponges, and them became fishes, then amphibians, etc., etc., until we arrived at apes. What kind of fantastical idiocy is this?

You trollin’ me bro’? Whatever, I’ll bite with one more answer. I didn’t agree with what you are saying about “information”. What you are describing is simple stasis – the same “conservation of biological information” idea that the Discovery Institute is pedaling. Information can increase, gene duplication alone does this. Their argument takes he same form as that old high-school math joke, you know the one where the Calc. 1 student says you can’t get all the way across the room because you have to go 1/2 way before you go all the way, and you have to go 1/4 of the way before you go 1/2 way, etc. ad infinitum? As for the second point, go look up mitochondria and Portuguese Man-o-War.

“You’re right, genetic information is gained and lost, but there is no equation involved. The ‘information theory’ arguments put forward by the ID crowd are bogus, and as far as I can tell, intentionally so. Nothing becomes ‘super’ in the process of evolution and I agree that the term “more highly evolved” is misleading. Sharks stayed sharks because they are very well adapted to their environment. Same for monkeys. Changes in their genotypes and phenotypes will tend to oscillate around a point of equilibrium – homeostasis.”

That sounded like you agreed with me on the part of increased genetic information. Bacteria to apes is not where near equilibrium and a whole lot of new information would have to be created to result in this supposed evolutionary change..

Even children have enough sense to constantly ask questions if something does not make sense to them. Unfortunately most adults prefer to fit in and conform to authority rather than ask questions and stir the pot.

Dating methods and DNA test are never questioned because the authorities (people supposedly more knowledgeable than we are) told us so and wouldn’t lie. Wouldn’t be misinformed. Wouldn’t be wrong. They are the infallible Truth tellers because they call themselves scientists.

Never mind how DNA test can supposedly tell the President’s wife who her ancestors were and where they are from–without having to dig up any bodies to extract any DNA to add to a database for a positive ID. Just accept what you are told. Just accept.

Q – “How in the world were we the more apt species to evolve from a species that could survive an environment where you often need powerful jaws and great muscle strength just to acquire sustenance?” A – Human Apes adapted bigger brains allowing them to learn to use tools and weapons, and developed a more sophisticated mutually beneficial social structure for working together.

I don’t preach my atheism, when people learn that I’m an atheist and come to challenge me to a debate, I refuse and say no time, not because I don’t know what to say but because I believe it’s just a waste of time. They want to spend their time worshiping Yoda, no problem just keep your religion off my constitution and the department education.
I’m done with religion, and debates is an effing waste of time. keep your toy to yourself.

♣ About me

I am Monica Salcedo McGee, known for being a fiercely outspoken atheist, on this site, and on Twitter and Google Plus. I am a humanist, a freethinker, a rationalist, and an egalitarian. I am married to Joshua McGee (@McGeekiest). I also occasionally write over at gawd.me.

♣ I am…

I am a secular humanist. I rely on reason to understand the world, and compassion guides my effort to apply my knowledge ethically. I behave decently to everyone without any expectation of rewards or punishment after I'm dead.